McPhail v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.
This is an action at common law to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of alleged negligence of the defendant. The declaration was originally in three counts; a fourth count later was added. At the close of the evidence the defendant filed a written motion for a directed verdict in its favor upon each count. The motion was allowed as to the third count, and denied as to *115the first, second and fourth counts, subject „to the defend- • ant’s exception. The defendant also excepted to the refusal of the trial judge to give certain instructions to the jury; some of those exceptions…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Holden v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Armburg v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Spicer v. South Boston Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Jellow v. Fore River Ship Building Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Coleman v. Mechanics' Iron Foundry Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cozzo v. Atlantic Refining Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
- Cronan v. ArmitageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Dumas v. MeyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Thacker v. KlotzSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
- Godon v. McClureMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.